2016 SI Swimsuit

[HitchcockBlonde]

38 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 In the real world

Wait, is Ashley someone's photoshop project and not an actual living breathing human being? Watch your wording  

Speaking as someone who lives in a place where deep fried Mars bars and haggis are delicacies, 'fat deposits that warp their faces' aren't a thing for people Ashely's size. They're not a thing for most heavyset women, unless you consider apple cheeks and that bit under your chin most people get as they age 'warping'. You wanna talk about Ashley, talk about Ashley, not about a. women who aren't in the industry who have done frankly nothing to deserve judgement and are b. larger, clothing size-wise, than her. 

Slow your roll. 

These thinly veiled excuses to hate women are boring.

Call me PC, I don't give a fuck, you're exhausting.

 

I'm not an SI follower, I just go where the shitstorm goes, so I have no clue what went into this issue, blah blah blah, but none of the covers strike me as commercially appealing. Hailey's comes closest in that she and her tits are the most obvious follow-through with previous covers, but her posing is so... I don't know what it is, but she looks uncomfortable and the way she's holding her chest is fairly awkward? Ronda is, as it's been pointed out, out on a loss right now, and once she was no longer invincible, her attitude went from charming-cocky to she needs to get over herself (though in my personal opinion, I admire her confidence). And Ashley, just read through this thread. Their choices are... interesting and it's going to be interesting to see what happens with the magazine from here on out. If I care enough to follow through.

[jj3]

1 minute ago, HitchcockBlonde said:

 

These thinly veiled excuses to hate women are boring.

 

 

That's funny, but i rarely see overweighted male models or actors, or singers ...

[Cult Icon]

It's quite revealing of the times that my comment stimulated that sort of response.   It's true across the board though, with plus-sized models.  For instance, in the Lane Bryant "I'm not angel" advert, those women's faces could be successfully photoshopped onto superskinny bodies.  In the main, it isn't reality though... just like HF models aren't.

 

 

[HitchcockBlonde]

5 minutes ago, jj3 said:

That's funny, but i rarely see overweighted male models or actors, or singers ...

You want lists? I've got lists. 

 

I wish I could say I didn't come here to fight anyone, but I totally did.

Fuck the high road, I don't appreciate being condescended to. 

 

Moving on: the more I look at them, the posing on all of the covers is questionable.

But then again, I don't think SI is usually a beacon of good posing.

[slowen]

300 pages of this thread and the magazine isn't even out yet  

[peroxideblonde]

when the pics are coming out? midnight ny time?

[Cult Icon]

14 minutes ago, HitchcockBlonde said:

 

 

I wish I could say I didn't come here to fight anyone, but I totally did.

Fuck the high road, I don't appreciate being condescended to. 

 

Eh calm yourself.  What is principle anyway?  Can it be brought to the bank?

[SympathysSilhouette]

21 minutes ago, jj3 said:

 

That's funny, but i rarely see overweighted male models or actors, or singers ...

 

You don't? I see plenty of male actors who do not conform to beauty ideals. Far more than female actors.

And on top of that, male actors get to play mainstream leading man roles for about 20 years longer than their female counterparts.

[Clauds]

^ But have you seen any of them get named Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine? Nope  

 

I just saw some bits of the tv thing last night and Rebecca (who was a horrid host btw, should have been Chrissy) said the Model Search was annuan thing, does this mean we're getting an annual model search now? I'm curious to see, I personally think they shouldn't do it because once you lose a MS you're probably 100% cut from SI for good so it means that it doesn't matter how much you improve you're still not going to be in the magazine, look at Jasmine Tookes she lost in 2011 and she's now looking better than ever.

[Memento Mori]

13 hours ago, Memento Mori said:

Here are the videos. Didn't make any previews as y'all can just reference the website. All are straight rips, no format conversion. 1920x1080 flv. Gifs maybe tomorrow, I need to sleep.

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/bio3frh89 Ebonee 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/q2t0fcoc9 Ebonee 2

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/nqoxriq7e Kyra 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/cjt7egsqs Kyra 2

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/p5eq3428d Megan 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/2j5dyuoi3 Megan 2

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/ydw1vcczd Mia 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/oxhyhcvhk Mia 2

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/ar5osh6fc Caroline 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/s3c6ggw5o Caroline 2

 

http://depositfiles.com/files/udk4ypoe4 Dani 1

http://depositfiles.com/files/mo1b14nol Dani 2

 

 

Fixed Megan 2 link (previously was duplicate of Mia 1).

[MV007]

To me this comes down to the purpose of the magazine. If the purpose is to promote female empowerment and positive body images then good job. If the purpose is advertise swim suits for all women to view and prospectively purchase then good job. 

 

If if the purpose is to sell magazines and appeal to men then terrible job. As a heterosexual male I look at this magazine and keep my subscription so that I can fantasize about these women. And I don't really care if my tastes are the product of the medias manipulation. They are my tastes. And I simply don't care to see Ashley in a bikini. I don't find it attractive. If my copy comes in the mail and it doesn't have Hailey on the cover I'm going to be pissed. 

[Memento Mori]

13 minutes ago, Clauds said:

^ But have you seen any of them get named Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine? Nope  

 

Not the same, unless you mean to suggest that men and women are held to functionally equivalent standards of beauty in popular culture. 

 

2 minutes ago, MV007 said:

To me this comes down to the purpose of the magazine. If the purpose is to promote female empowerment and positive body images then good job. If the purpose is advertise swim suits for all women to view and prospectively purchase then good job. 

 

If if the purpose is to sell magazines and appeal to men then terrible job. As a heterosexual male I look at this magazine and keep my subscription so that I can fantasize about these women. And I don't really care if my tastes are the product of the medias manipulation. They are my tastes. And I simply don't care to see Ashley in a bikini. I don't find it attractive. If my copy comes in the mail and it doesn't have Hailey on the cover I'm going to be pissed. 

 

I think this is close to a fair take. My only disagreement is that I do care that my tastes are the product of media manipulation. It might be too late for us to escape the formative gravity well that led you (and me, to a certain extent) to decisively prefer Ninas over Ashleys, but I see no reason not to rectify that among young men with a better media culture.

[17 Moments of Spring]

8 minutes ago, MV007 said:

To me this comes down to the purpose of the magazine. If the purpose is to promote female empowerment and positive body images then good job. If the purpose is advertise swim suits for all women to view and prospectively purchase then good job. 

 

If if the purpose is to sell magazines and appeal to men then terrible job. As a heterosexual male I look at this magazine and keep my subscription so that I can fantasize about these women. And I don't really care if my tastes are he product of the medias manipulation. They are my tastes. And I simply don't care to see Ashley in a bikini. I don't find it attractive. If my copy comes in the mail and it doesn't have Hailey on the cover I'm going to be pissed. 

 

I tend to agree

 

btw, fwiw, what kind of female body shape men prefer, these preferences are not the product of cultural or social influences, but evolutionary (biological) factors

 

 

[Memento Mori]

6 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:

 

I tend to agree

 

btw, fwiw, what kind of female body shape men prefer, these preferences are not the product of cultural or social influences, but evolutionary (biological) factors

 

Evolutionary psychology is bunk because its hypotheses cannot be tested. Furthermore, it can't explain the diversity of body types on display throughout western art history, or the vast differences in preferences before cultural homogenization. Eg, before mass media flattened culture and exposed the world to many of the same images. How does, for example, evolutionary psychology--which purports to attribute sexual preferences to prehistoric impulses--explain the isolated and relatively modern Chinese practice of footbinding, which would have been crippling for ancient hunter-gatherer societies utterly dependent on freedom of movement?  (Answer: It can't because it doesn't work)

[17 Moments of Spring]

Psychological hypotheses can be tested, by means of experiments.

 

Social theories cannot be tested by experiments. There were attempts tho, they're called nazism and communism.

 

 

 

 

[Memento Mori]

1 minute ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:

Psychological hypotheses can be tested, by means of experiments.

 

Social theories cannot be tested by experiments. There were attempts tho, they're called nazism and communism.

 

Evolutionary psychology says "we are now this way because our ancestors were this way." We can make inferences about how the mind works now. We cannot examine prehistoric psychology, or how the mind worked then. So any link between the two is by definition untestable. 

 

And I'm not even going to begin to unpack the nonsense in your second line. I'm a 20th century historian, the thoroughness with which I would feel obligated to refute it would consume this thread.

[pinguoin]

 

 

[17 Moments of Spring]

heaps of experiments:

 

6 minutes ago, Memento Mori said:

 

Evolutionary psychology says "we are now this way because our ancestors were this way." We can make inferences about how the mind works now. We cannot examine prehistoric psychology, or how the mind worked then. So any link between the two is by definition untestable.

 

this is nonsense

 

"I'm a 20th century historian" - this may explain why you try to explain everything with social theories

 

there are cultural influences, but they don't explain nearly everything

 

on the other side, there are heaps of experiments:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Memento Mori]

Your own link contains numerous references to the actual and potential impact of cultural differences, including how those changed over time. Including, specifically, body mass. Maybe read the whole thing before you link something?

[17 Moments of Spring]

Maybe read my former comment?